Buddhism! WOW~!

[psychedelic nod]

Totally Buddhist here. Definitely not a religion. I don't think I would call it a philosophy, either. just a way, perhaps.

im pretty deep into buddhism as well, i still eat meat and i dont follow some of the stricter statutes but im essentially buddhist. I agree, religion (at least to me ) has some very negative connotations, especially the concept of organized religion, i was raised a catholic so that really turned me off to any of the "traditional" religios beliefs, buddhism is really more of a way to live your life than anything else. it could be considered a philosophy like confuscism and taoism because it does have a school of thought.
Its really changed my life immensly for the better, finding my center, meditating, staying focused and calm, its really beocme a part of who i am.
buddhism has tremendous value and truth to it, imho its really the only school of thought that makes enough sense for me to follow it.


however, existentialism is aiight too

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

tree, I'm enjoying your contribution to this thread a lot, and pretty much agree with your take on karma (action). I like that you mentioned the Zen-practicing calligrapher -- Chinese calligraphers have long seen their craft as the quintessential example of Zen / Taoist philosophy in practice. I'd be interested to know if another people with a rich tradition of calligraphy -- the Arabs -- see spiritual merit in their art for similar reasons.

B9, in response to your question, I see Buddhism as both a religion and a philosophy, depending on the user. It's like askng whether a knife is a weapon or a culinary tool. The essence of a religion is a community of people. A worldview or belief system becomes a religion when people bond over it, and bond over living it out in practice. Others may disagree, but to me the essence of a philosophy, when used with the indefinite article, is a logical framework maintained as a jumping-off point for asking and answering questions. Religion and philosophy frequently occur together, but it's just as common to see one without the other. So I guess the better question is, is buddhism a religion or a philosophy FOR YOU?

I find it interesting that this distinction is rather clear-cut in Daoism -- modern scholarship on Daoism maintains a sharp distinction between Religious Daoism and Philosophical Daoism. I'm most definitely a Philosophical Daoist -- I often use Daoist references and metaphors to frame the philosophical inquiries I make. But I don't light joss sticks or practice divination at a Chinese temple, and I don't gether with other Daoists to celebrate important days in the Daoist calendar.

Why do you all think that Buddhism doesn't make this distinction clearer?

 

[B9]

So I guess the better question is, is buddhism a religion or a philosophy FOR YOU?

Neither - tho I can accept many of the principles involved - & can see how & why people might take it up as a religion - nor is it a philosophy that I would wish subscribe to completely - mainly because I haven't read enough in depth.

The ritual aspect I would find irksome, but I understand it to be helpful to many people as a way of keeping their consciousness raised.

Maybe I could do with a little of that actually

 

[Fausty]

tree, I'm enjoying your contribution to this thread a lot, and pretty much agree with your take on karma (action). I like that you mentioned the Zen-practicing calligrapher -- Chinese calligraphers have long seen their craft as the quintessential example of Zen / Taoist philosophy in practice. I'd be interested to know if another people with a rich tradition of calligraphy -- the Arabs -- see spiritual merit in their art for similar reasons.

I keep thinking back to that amazing sequence in Hero - the calligraphers, the arrows, the unbending commitment to nonviolence.

Why do you all think that Buddhism doesn't make this distinction clearer?

There are many paths. . .

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Fausty]

Maybe interconnectedness offers a greater understanding of the connections suffering has between people. I'm not sure though. I always though it was a concept used to explain the emptiness of all things and dependent origination.

Personally, I think that the acceptance of fundamental interconnectedness is rooted in a total acceptance of the limits of our ability to know the world around us. We think we can wall off areas - this only effects this, that won't effect this - but of course reality doesn't play by those rules. The world outside us is bigger than us, and bigger than our understanding of it. This implies, by definition, absolute interconnectedness.

This is also why, incidentally, the intentionality of actions matters. We can't ever know what the direct consequences of our actions will be - we can guess, and try to predict. . . but in the end, the ripples of our acts spread too far for us to control. The best we can do is be clear in our intentions. Having good intentions is no guarantee of having good outcomes; there is no such guarantee. But, in that we can in fact control our intentions, it is within our grasp to use this control wisely.

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Jamshyd]

Maybe you need to look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land
This is, in my Mind!, the real consequence!
U have to check up the links!

You can be right, even if U are a zero.

Edit: i am just comming back from a visit.
Our shrine say`s:
Wake up with Hope,
Work hard in the daytime (follow the 8 noble Path and do your Homework)
and
be happy when you go to bed!

There is much Wisdom inside.
Do not suffer anymore!

That is an interesting understanding of Pure Land buddhism. From what little I have learned, and lot that I've seen (in Tokyo, at least), it strikes me as obvious that pure-land evolved... it seemed to me to be a natural evolution of exoteric Buddhism that allowed your average salaryman to be holy despite working 11h a day and getting wasted or sleep for the rest of it.

-----

MDAO: Islamic caligraphy: the answer (IMO, at least) is both yes and no.

At its very basic, it was simply a way to artistically express the divine, which denied its followers artistic expression of itself (or its prophet). Once such art moved eastward into Iran, central asia, and india, it mingled with hindu, buddhist, zoroastrian, tengiri, and other religions on the silk road, it absorbed a lot of esoteric concepts that inevitably expressed itself through caligraphic art.

But on the other end of the spectrum, Islamic caligraphy can be interpreted as the very failure it was trying to medicate: idolization. Now people can idolize the words instead of the icons/statues.

 

[cire113]

I think it is a way of life...

This whole debate of i believe this or that has been great but remember

I cannot think myself into right acting but i can act myself into right thinking....

Buddhism to me is more of a living thing on a daily basis rather than a study of theories or believing this or that...Or no its this or not its that... it is a life that is lived by principles in all aspects of life..
I like how someone says it is basically a personal experience and for everyone its different

but i really dont know i was just thinking that lol

 

[Changed]

everytime the reponses get longer and longer in this thread, Gotama is rolling over in Nirvana...

 

[tree]

Pure Land always seemed kind of cool to me...I couldn't help have my mind wander to Zion when I hear about it. I imagine this hyperdimensional visualization, like piecewise mahamudra. I don't know anything about their practices though, just heart an old piece about a mantra.

 

[Jamshyd]

^ Are you sure you're sober?

I personally think Pure Land is the product of the East Asian voraciousness for efficiency. It has very little to do with the original teachings of the buddha.

 

[Xevy]

The understanding of Buddhist rebirth and karma is a subtle matter, especially if one is not clear what a Buddhist means by these terms. Buddha Shakyamuni taught in a certain cultural context. This caused him to teach using certain traditional Indian words such as karma.

However, Shakyamuni's use of the words differs from how the Vedic literature used them. In addition to this, in the West we have many many 'new age' ideas as to what karma means. These other meanings are not 'wrong', but they are not the Buddhist presentation of karma.

On the internet are many excellent Buddhist resources, no longer are we limited to the early translations and texts that were the only available works in the 70s. For example, www.berzinarchives.com is the website of one of H.H.D.L's English translators.

This site has tons of info; on the issue of karma at a basic level and in general terms:

"Question : Is the theory of karma empirical and scientific, or is it accepted on faith?

Answer: The idea of karma makes sense in many ways, but there is some misunderstanding about what karma is. Some people think that karma means fate or predestination. If somebody is hit by a car or loses a lot of money in business, they say, "Well, tough luck, that is their karma." That is not the Buddhist idea of karma. In fact, that is more the idea of God's will - something that we do not understand or have any control over.

In Buddhism, karma refers to impulses. Based on previous actions we have done, impulses arise in us to act in certain ways now. Karma refers to the impulse that comes into someone's mind to invest in a stock the day before it crashes or before it rises in value. Or, someone may have the impulse to cross the street at just the moment when he or she will be hit by a car, not five minutes earlier or five minutes later. The arising of the impulse at just that moment is the result of some previous action or actions the person did. In a previous life, for example, the person might have tortured or killed someone. Such destructive behavior results in the perpetrator experiencing a shortened lifespan as well, usually in another lifetime. Thus, the impulse to cross the street arose at just the moment to be hit by a car.

A person may have the impulse to shout at or hurt someone else. The impulse comes from habits built up by previous similar behavior. Yelling or hurting others builds up a potential, tendency and habit for this type of behavior, so that in the future, we easily do it again. Shouting with anger builds up even more of a potential, tendency and habit to make an angry scene again."

Likewise, Dr. Berzin presents an easy to understand explanation for Buddhist rebirth, which does NOT involve any independent and solid soul or self moving from body to body.

See this site for more basic info on Buddhist karma and rebirth:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...ry_material/basic_question_karma_rebirth.html

As stated by H.H.D.L., if western science 'disproves' the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth, it should be removed. However, this is not the case as that Dr. Berzin makes clear in the above link.

Buddhism is not a belief system that must be 'accepted' all at once. It is a gradual unfolding of understanding. However, within every traditional Buddhist lineage to exist (including Theravada, Tibetan, Zen, and so on) there is a belief in literal rebirth and karma.

The tricky part is of course understanding what is meant by these terms, and the above links and websites can help in this regard.

Although these are core tenets, different traditions will present them from different angles. Additionally, teachers will teach them differently to different students based on the students capacity and current understanding.